Euthanasia: A Question Of Privacy & Oath Or Right & Wrong

This is a short paper I presented as part of my research Project many years ago. It covers the religious, historical, legal and social issues surrounding mercy killing, also known as "Euthanasia".

Freedom to Live or Freedom to Die?


The word "Euthanasia" is from the Greek language meaning "easy death". It is an "act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable and distressing disease as an act of mercy." (Black's Law Dictionary, 497)

The history of euthanasia thus goes back to ancient times, when many eminent philosophers of the day support its use. The great Roman philosopher, Seneca,

summed up the views of his time when he said, "If I can choose between a death of torture and one that is simple and easy, why should I not select the latter?" Even though this outlook which prevailed in the first century A.D. was shared by many, it was not universal. As time progressed, philosophical views on euthanasia were quickly exchanged for more popular and accepted religious dogmas. By this same token, Thomas Acquinas, the very famous and most revered theologian and philosopher believed that "to commit suicide, is to usurp G-d's power over creation and death." (Russell, 54, 55)

Today, advocates for the legalization of euthanasia maintain that it is a right of privacy, and as long as this right does not harm society it should not be denied. Those against it maintain a reverse position. They believe that the act of euthanasia has "social significance" as well as religious ramifications and that if euthanasia were to become too tolerated, it would not be in the best interest of society.

The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution states; "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Nowhere in the constitution do the framers make mention of the idea of euthanasia, a concept with which as classical scholars they would surely have been acquainted. Surely if they considered it important the framers of the constitution would perhaps have protected that right for the individual because it is a private right and they understood the need for those protections. (The United States Constitution)

In 1976, the New Jersey Supreme Court, the highest court in that state, ruled In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647, that Karen Ann Quinlan had a constitutional "right of privacy" that could be safeguarded by her legal guardian. In Quinlan's case, her family requested "judicial authority" to withdraw life sustaining mechanisms, specifically a respirator which was believed to have been "temporarily preserving her life." The court firmly held that "ultimately, there comes a point at which the individual's rights overcome the state interest." The court reasoned that if Karen were competent to make the choice, it would be "vindicated by law." (N.Y. Times, 23)

One of the most important concerns which the courts since the Quinlan case have emphasized, was their belief that when a patient's illness is truly irreversible, their condoning measures to discontinue life sustaining treatment were justified only if it were in the individual's best interest.

Critics have contended that at times "our laws encourage inconsistency." They asserted that medical ethics on the subject of mercy killing are to some degree hypocritical. According to them, "letting someone die is morally acceptable, but that actively abetting the process is not." (Christian Century, 980)

The right of a person to wish to die, when society cannot help that person, is a right that should rest in the hands of those that are ill. Clearly, deep concern for the rights of the terminally ill have been, and are continuing to be addressed with increasing

gravity. On May 16, 1974, Assemblyman Keene of California, introduced a "euthanasia bill" as an amendment to the Civil Code relating to death. It consisted of one sentence; "Every person has the right to die without prolongation of life by medical means." (Russell, 192)

On the other hand, much opposition against legalizing euthanasia exists due to social, ethical and religious reasoning. Specifically, it is feared that if the right of euthanasia were to become acceptable policy "people would interpret euthanasia as a way for society to take advantage of those incapable of defending themselves." Therefore, it is not difficult to see the potential hazards which might accompany such policies. The protection of the individual is by far society's most paramount duty in a constitutional liberal democracy. Hence, "if a social order fails to defend those who cannot defend themselves, then that order is...morally wrong." Unfortunately, those groups and institutions that support the right of euthanasia, fail to address other equally important considerations that directly affect this issue. Consequently, other victims are overlooked. The Doctor being sworn into his profession must take the Hippocratic Oath which binds him with "the duty never to take life but always attempt to preserve it." Here his rights are being intruded upon. (Kluge, 55, 31)

Today, we live in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. we are a society where G-d is viewed by most as the ultimate hope, when and where all of man's interventions fail. Appropriately, the Bible presents the hope of life after death. It presents "two alternatives to euthanasia." First, the opportunity for a G-dly healing. Secondly, that "G-d has a purpose in suffering." There is a purpose to suffering and it is real. This is why "they never practiced euthanasia but looked...to healing or to the benefits of suffering as an alternative." (Christianity Today, 11)

In the wake of our courts past history, solutions to problems emanating from euthanasia will not come easily. The fact that we are a litigious society adds to this difficulty. Yet, the right of privacy is real and should not be neglected. Equally as important is the social significances which are engendered. Society must protect the
individual and at the same time harbor a vision of the common good. Once society fails to protect one individual, she in a way fails to protect all. Hopefully, there will come a time when the interests of the State and the interests of the individual will be one with respect to euthanasia.

 

 

Bibliography
Black's Law Dictionary
St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1986.

Kluge, Eike-Henner W. The Ethics of Deliberate Death.
Port Washington: Kennikat Press Corp., 1981.

Russell, Ruth O. Freedom To Die.
New York: Human Sciences Press, 1975.

Sellers, James. "Is Euthanasia a Form of Civil Disobedience?"
Christian Century. Vol. 100, November 2, 1983, p. 980.

Stuart, Douglas K. "Mercy Killing"-Is It Biblical?
Christianity Today. Vol. 20, February 27, 1976, p. 11.

Sullivan, Joseph F. "Excerpts From Quinlan Decision"
The New York Times. April 1, 1976, p. 23.

The United States Constitution



Article Written By 2bpositive

A poet, philosopher & writer. I live to love, and I love to live!

Last updated on 29-07-2016 1K 0

Please login to comment on this post.
There are no comments yet.
A Lesson From Heaven Through The Agency Of A Cockroach (a True Story)